Live data from Hacker News

90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

claudescode.dev

221–230 of 252 posts

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#221

Perfect example of a base rate fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy What percentage of GitHub activity goes to GitHub repos with less than 2 stars? I would guess it's close to the same number.

My reaction as well -- I have a few dozen public repos of 100% human-written code, most are 0 stars!

Starring GitHub repos considered harmful.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#222
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual number is that 98% have less than 2 stars (0 or 1). About 90.25% has zero stars.

Sounds like Claude commits are, on average, going into higher visibility repositories than humans… maybe the author would like to reconsider their approach?

Well, you can't reconsider your approach when you don't like the results.

If anything, the fact that this is what he arrived at, even when starting with the opposite position, is proof of the validity of this result.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#223
post #31

Already enough comments about base rate fallacy, so instead I'll say I'm worried for the future of GitHub. Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits. I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm…

My friend and I are usually pretty good at ballparking things of this nature; that is "approximately how much textual data is github storing" and i immediately put an upper bound of a petabyte, there's absolutely no way that github has a petabyte of text.

Assuming just text, deduplication,not being dumb about storage patterns, our range is 40-100TB, and that's probably too high by 10x. 100TB means that the average repo is 100KB, too.

Nearly every arcade machine and pre-2002 console is available as a software "spin" that's How big was "every song on spotify"? 400TB?

the eye is somewhere between a quarter and a half a petabyte.

Wikipedia is ~100GB. It may be more, now, i haven't checked. But the raw DB with everything you need to display the text contained in wikipedia is 50-100GB, and most of that is the markup - that is, not "information for us, but information for the computer"

Common Crawl, with over one billion, nine hundred and seventy thousand web pages in their archive: 345TB.

We do not believe this has anything to do with the "queries per second" or "writes per second" on the platform. Ballpark, github probably smooths out to around ten thousand queries per second, median. I'd have guessed less, but then again i worked on a photography website database one time that was handling 4000QPS all day long between two servers. 15 years ago.

P.S. just for fun i searched github for `#!/bin/bash` and it returned 15.3mm "code", assume you replace just that with 2 bytes instead of 12, you save 175MB on disk. That's compression; but how many files are duplicated? I don't mean forks with no action, but different projects? Also i don't care to discern the median bash script byte-length on github, but ballparked to 1000 chars/bytes, mean, that's 16GB on disk for just bash scripts :-)

i have ~593 .sh files that everything.exe can see, and 322 are 1KB or less, 100 are 1-2KB, 133 are 2-10KB, and the rest - 38 - are >11KB. of the 1KB ones, a random sample shows they're clustering such that the mean is ~500B.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're suggesting that an AI translation of, say, a novel removes human authorship from the result? Unless a human goes in and makes further "substantive transformations" to the AI generated work? And if that's not what you are saying then how are you determining that prompts to and AI are not copyrighted by the author of the prompt? The results are nothing more than a derivative work of the prompt. So you are fac…

https://newsroom.loc.gov/news/copyright-office-releases-part... > The Copyright Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include…

Yes, but the point is that the AI output could still be covered by the definitely-human copyright in the prompt, just not a new copyright in the output.

For example, machine-translating a book doesn't create a new copyright in the new translation, but that new translation would still inherit the copyright in the original book.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#225
post #30

Perfect example of a base rate fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy What percentage of GitHub activity goes to GitHub repos with less than 2 stars? I would guess it's close to the same number.

Yeah. Most of my public repos have 0 stars. Most of what I write sucks.

Stars occasionally correlate with quality but more often it's timing and naming. I have a total of 40k stars on GitHub, and I know the code is shit in most of those repos (many written back when I was 16-18 as I was just learning to code). Jumping on hype trains before they start is how you get stars.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#227
post #18

Perfect example of a base rate fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy What percentage of GitHub activity goes to GitHub repos with less than 2 stars? I would guess it's close to the same number.

The actual number is that 98% have less than 2 stars (0 or 1). About 90.25% has zero stars.

[deleted]

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, every time I see a heatmap of Australian lotto winners - very high correlation with Australia's population.

shouldn't a serious heatmap (or any comparative graph for that matter) normalize the stat being displayed versus the baseline population in that bucket? in otherwords, plot the percentage or average metric and not the absolute metric. e.g. number of lotto winners per thousand people living in that grid, percentage of starred repos as a percentage of all repos, per capita alcohol consumption, average screen-time etc.…

Yes, this is why we use per capita stats for basically everything.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#229
post #31

Already enough comments about base rate fallacy, so instead I'll say I'm worried for the future of GitHub. Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits. I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm…

My friend and I are usually pretty good at ballparking things of this nature; that is "approximately how much textual data is github storing" and i immediately put an upper bound of a petabyte, there's absolutely no way that github has a petabyte of text. Assuming just text, deduplication,not being dumb about storage patterns, our range is 40-100TB, and that's probably too high by 10x. 100TB means that the average re…

Veracity unconfirmed, but this article asserts that until they did some cleanup they were storing 19 petabytes.

https://newsletter.betterstack.com/p/how-github-reduced-repo...

maybe sourced from this tweet?

https://x.com/github/status/1569852682239623173

Edit: though maybe that data doesn't count as your "just text" data.

Post reply on HN